There's nothing morally wrong with anything simply labeled as fashion. There's nothing morally wrong about saying certain words. Thre's nothing morally wrong with altering your own body in a way of your choosing. I don't get what you are talking about re: youtube videos.
Now, lets go to what people think GTA will lead to: rape, which is morally wrong, murder, again, morally wrong, theft, morally wrong.
You see, your examples of what kids might follow (and it's only might, because parents greatly influence their kids) are trivial. So what if a girl wears a belly shirt? At the end of the day it makes no difference at all. No one gets hurt, and getting upset about it only makes teenagers more likely to want to do it because they are trying to form their own identity. You likely won't hit someone though, because at some point in your life you were hit, and it hurts. Also, if you have good parents you know that assulting others is wrong. If you have crappy parents that beat you, well, that's what you learned. But you're not going to start beating someone if you haven't been abused because you played a game.
The arguments now are the same as the arguments against Doom, Mortal Kombat and a host of other games. The only difference now is that some are trying to give the argument more weight by saying the games are more real, and thus WILL actually cause you to go out and beat people. Any idiot should be able to see through such an argument though, because at all times we know the game is just a game.
I did read the article. The problem is that the content of the book in question is largely taking Rowlings work and repackaging it. That is, it's not sufficently different that it's not a derived work. It's an encylopedia about a fictonal realm with comments thrown in. Take out the encylopedia portion and publish only the comments and that would be fine.
He's talking about re-using general themes. Yes, that's all fine and dandy. However, copyright is about specific implementations. The concept of a wizard can't be copyrighted, but a wizard named Harry Potter with glasses that has a specific set of life events is certainly copyrightable. The book which triggered the lawsuit is taking the specifics of Harry Potter and the characters and republishing them. It's significantly similar, and thus a derived work which only the author can legally create.
I would certainly do the honorable thing, except a large portion of society is sticking me with their debts.
That said, insurance just means a different part of society pays. In the event someone doesn't have life insurance, lenders buy bad debt insurance. Of course their rates will depend on how many bad debts they build up.. which provides good motive to only give loans to people that have a good history of paying off debt.
Torts fall under almost *entirely* different rules of evidence from crimes. Maybe you can help Hans when his appeal comes up in 12 or 50 years or never.
Yes, that is my point. Why are the rules MORE STRICT for torts than criminal cases? I know what the law says; what I'm trying to say is that it's pretty inconsistent. Do we really care more about protecting the bottom line of a business than preventing innocent people from being jailed?
I would not put money on Nina surfacing alive and well. Safer bet would be that her body washes up in the Bay.
Why? There are many cases where it's happened. There are even more cases where "Nina" doesn't surface, but her new identity as "Sarah" does. You're delusional if you think that many people that go missing AREN'T doing so because they no longer want to be found.
I was a "no body, no evidence" advocate when the story broke originally, and it was only when Hans' explanation about things like the car turned out to be full of fail that I changed my mind. He needed to do a better job of explaining, for my armchair judgment, and had I been a juror, I wouldn't have been satisfied with his explanation either.
Full of fail? Well, I have to say that you're pretty fortunate that no circumstancial evidence has ever been used in any way, even outside of legal proceedings. As people we seem to like to delude ourselves that because something is unlikely, it must not be possible. The truth is the only person that knows for sure why Hans' car was the way it was is Hans'. And the truth is we have no evidence at all to call him a liar.
When the prosecutor says you dumped your car seat because you had strapped your wife's bloody corpse to it... you really, really need a better answer to that than a shrug, or "no I didn't". Sorry if that is unfair or harsh. I think he's guilty and I'm glad the verdict was guilty and I hope he gets life.
He could have dumped it because it had broken. People dump things all the time. Of course the procecution says he dumped it becaue "his wife's blood corse [was strapped] to it," but where did they get that from? Do they have any evidence his wife bled in the car? That Han was responsible for spilling any blood there may have been? That his wife was in the seat when it was removed? Where did you get your informatin about his answers? The news, or actual transcripts? I hope it wasn't the news. They'll out and out lie to sell a paper, and that HAS been shown.
Your last statements also confuse me. I understand having a desire for justice. I don't understand why you personally feel someone you don't know accused of commiting a crime aganist someone you also don't know is found guilty and punished. You weren't there, you weren't in the jury even.. how can you be so sure of anything? I find there are too many questions, and I'd rather error on the side of the accused than the state. Take a look at recent cases in Texas. We're up to, what, 18 people that are now free because we can finally prove they are innocent? Many those cases were based on just circumstatial evidence as well... some even had real physical evidence. And yet you can safely say "well, I KNOW he's guilty this time?"
EVEN IF Nina shows up alive and well, Hans has a lot of explaining to do.
Huh? What would he have to explain? Where she was? Why is that burden on him? How can you reasonablly hold him to that? If I just up and left my wife, you think she could even hope to explain anything?
Well I certainly don't care if you choose to throw away your money. I just was pointing out reasons for others to not take your advice.
As far as co-signing goes, again, I was aiming anything at you personally, just responding to your points. But co-signing is a bit different; they already assumed responsiblity for the debt, and why you end up not paying is mostly irrelevent.. If you co-sign for someone, you'd better be able to assume the debt at any time. If you can't, you shouldn't be co-signing.
At any rate, co-signing is more of an edge case. When I got my student loans, the government gave my parents a loan totally seperate from mine loan. If I died, my parents would only be responsible for their own loan, not the loan that was in my name only. I would have liked to gotten life insurance to help my parents pay off their loan, since it was for my benefit, but being in college it wasn't really an option for me. Now that I'm more established, that is one of the reasons I have life insurance.
Huh? Do you have anything to back up your line of crap? I use Trillian, and I have to say, Jabber is the only protocol I couldn't give two shits about. Maybe to you it's a deciding feature, but I doubt it is to most on Windows.
Your student debt is irrelevent. Unless you're planning on leaving a lot of money or your assets, it won't matter. They can't hold your parents responsible for your debts, so the only option would be to auction your stuff. Being that you're a young unmarried person, you probably don't really have anything your family would need. Obviously if you have kids it's different.. but if you don't and it's just you.. well, there's really no reason for you to have your own life insurance, unless you care about your parents getting your TV or something.
Funerals are expensive, as are plots of land. Cremation is also not cheap, AFAIK. So yes, they do have more to worry about, but at the same time they need to make final arrangements for their son, and I don't think anyone wants to worry about going bankrupt on bury their son either..
If the family can't afford it and does nothing, some states will just bury the body in some remote plot of land, likely without even a name on the marker.
Huh? I created a myspace profile to see a friend's profile, and it never asked for next of kin. If it does provide a space for that, it's certainly not required. Yahoo I'm fairly sure is the same as well.
You assume Lotus Notes was fitting their definition of "works."
The article seems fishy though, because you can backup Exchange and have been able to for a while, and I know I saw Data Retention as a feature, although maybe eight years ago it was not.. still, a backup should have been done, and that should have gotten more emails.
Without a body, it's hardly reasonable to conclude she is dead. You assume that the jury was reasonable, or that you are. People disappear all the time, and they are not dead. Women in abusive relationships "disappear" all the time. Many aren't dead, they go underground, moving across country. Why is this not a likely scenario? You really think it's more probably that people that disappear are dead? Where are you stats to back that up? What grounds are you basing that assumption on?
I know the legal defintion of circumstantial evidence because I've read it. It's also soundly based on logical fallicy. Consider this: in HS, your principal sees you sitting at a certain table during lunch. Later that afternoon, he comes back and finds the table vandalized. He gives you detention because he concludes that you vadalized the table, because you were the last person someone saw sitting at the table. Do you find that to be a logical or reasonable conclusion? Or is it just as likely that someone else vandalized the table between the time you were last seen there and the time the crime was discovered?
That's pretty much the case here. Finding blood does not mean someone has died. It means someone has bleed. Being unable to locate the person does not mean that person has died. It means no one knows where that person is. Put it all together, I don't see how any reasonable person can believe "beyond any reasonable doubt" that there is no other scenario that lead to the evidence at hand.
Check this link. Circumstacial evidence is not allowed in many states for liable in defective product cases. If we don't allow it there, why are we allowing it for criminal murder trials?
What is this "more democratic country" that has such wonderful prisons for people who commit murder?
Well, let's consider that there's no body. Just because one is convicted doesn't mean one is actually guilty. In this case, it seems to be nothing but circumstantial evidence. There's not one drop to link him to the disapearence of his wife, and we can't even be reasonably sure she's dead. I'm pretty boggled that we even allow only circumstantial cases to be brought, let alone convict anyone on the "evidence."
Courts ask how they got the information all the time. Even if the court doesn't, the accused's defense will certainly want to know where the information came from, and the evidence would be thrown out then.
Bringing things more back on topic (although I feel I've been on topic), if we can't reach a conclusion about whether violent books lead to violent crimes, why are we creating laws restricting individual freedom?
Of course, I'd also argue that it's already been proven that there is no such link between violent art and violent people.. people have been violent long before we started forming "civilizations."
I guess "nothing to do with TFA" is a mindset. I see them as related because both are actions by a government trying to limit a person's individual freedom.
As far as changing of minds go, how do you propose we proceed then? Eliminate the bans or make them stricter? If we can't even agree if there's a problem, why are we trying to create a solution? The topic needs to come up and be debated because one group of people are trying to control another group of people. Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.
Well, if it takes a full minute more for the SSD vs. the HDD, you may lose any battery savings... since you're powering the SSD for more than one minute.
I don't see that it's a stupid debate at all. Our founders had a very clear reason for the second amendment, and you can find volumes of their writings on it. If you want to call it stupid, please point out flaws in their reasoning. Being dismissive doesn't help your case, and dispite the flamebait mod, I really am curious as to when and why Britain outlawed private gun ownership. I honestly don't know the history of Britain's gun control laws, and its annoying to think that an honest question was meant to be flamebait.
I also find it odd that you only find gun ownership unusual; the whole idea of our government was very unusual in the time it was first created. I don't know of any other country that espoused the idea that people aren't subjects of some arbitrary authority, but are sovreign in their own right. I'm still not sure any other country has that idea behind it.. although it's said to see the US leaving that line of thinking today.
Sorry, you do own the hardware. You also own yoru data on it. The OS is another matter. But by trying to imply your computer isn't yours at all is FUD.
Uh, can you point to a section of the article that indicates that intential security holes were built in? Last I checked, if you have physical access to any computer, you can get in.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that this is a game, and meant to be fun, not to be a lesson in reality. That's the parents job, not the game makers.
There's nothing morally wrong with anything simply labeled as fashion. There's nothing morally wrong about saying certain words. Thre's nothing morally wrong with altering your own body in a way of your choosing. I don't get what you are talking about re: youtube videos.
Now, lets go to what people think GTA will lead to: rape, which is morally wrong, murder, again, morally wrong, theft, morally wrong.
You see, your examples of what kids might follow (and it's only might, because parents greatly influence their kids) are trivial. So what if a girl wears a belly shirt? At the end of the day it makes no difference at all. No one gets hurt, and getting upset about it only makes teenagers more likely to want to do it because they are trying to form their own identity. You likely won't hit someone though, because at some point in your life you were hit, and it hurts. Also, if you have good parents you know that assulting others is wrong. If you have crappy parents that beat you, well, that's what you learned. But you're not going to start beating someone if you haven't been abused because you played a game.
The arguments now are the same as the arguments against Doom, Mortal Kombat and a host of other games. The only difference now is that some are trying to give the argument more weight by saying the games are more real, and thus WILL actually cause you to go out and beat people. Any idiot should be able to see through such an argument though, because at all times we know the game is just a game.
Ah, so then Rowling it is.
I did read the article. The problem is that the content of the book in question is largely taking Rowlings work and repackaging it. That is, it's not sufficently different that it's not a derived work. It's an encylopedia about a fictonal realm with comments thrown in. Take out the encylopedia portion and publish only the comments and that would be fine.
He's talking about re-using general themes. Yes, that's all fine and dandy. However, copyright is about specific implementations. The concept of a wizard can't be copyrighted, but a wizard named Harry Potter with glasses that has a specific set of life events is certainly copyrightable. The book which triggered the lawsuit is taking the specifics of Harry Potter and the characters and republishing them. It's significantly similar, and thus a derived work which only the author can legally create.
I would certainly do the honorable thing, except a large portion of society is sticking me with their debts.
That said, insurance just means a different part of society pays. In the event someone doesn't have life insurance, lenders buy bad debt insurance. Of course their rates will depend on how many bad debts they build up.. which provides good motive to only give loans to people that have a good history of paying off debt.
Yeah.. I guess I should have been more explicit in making that same point.
Anecdote is not evidence. You lose.
Torts fall under almost *entirely* different rules of evidence from crimes.
Maybe you can help Hans when his appeal comes up in 12 or 50 years or never.
Yes, that is my point. Why are the rules MORE STRICT for torts than criminal cases? I know what the law says; what I'm trying to say is that it's pretty inconsistent. Do we really care more about protecting the bottom line of a business than preventing innocent people from being jailed?
I would not put money on Nina surfacing alive and well. Safer bet would be that her body washes up in the Bay.
Why? There are many cases where it's happened. There are even more cases where "Nina" doesn't surface, but her new identity as "Sarah" does. You're delusional if you think that many people that go missing AREN'T doing so because they no longer want to be found.
I was a "no body, no evidence" advocate when the story broke originally, and it was only when Hans' explanation about things like the car turned out to be full of fail that I changed my mind. He needed to do a better job of explaining, for my armchair judgment, and had I been a juror, I wouldn't have been satisfied with his explanation either.
Full of fail? Well, I have to say that you're pretty fortunate that no circumstancial evidence has ever been used in any way, even outside of legal proceedings. As people we seem to like to delude ourselves that because something is unlikely, it must not be possible. The truth is the only person that knows for sure why Hans' car was the way it was is Hans'. And the truth is we have no evidence at all to call him a liar.
When the prosecutor says you dumped your car seat because you had strapped your wife's bloody corpse to it... you really, really need a better answer to that than a shrug, or "no I didn't". Sorry if that is unfair or harsh. I think he's guilty and I'm glad the verdict was guilty and I hope he gets life.
He could have dumped it because it had broken. People dump things all the time. Of course the procecution says he dumped it becaue "his wife's blood corse [was strapped] to it," but where did they get that from? Do they have any evidence his wife bled in the car? That Han was responsible for spilling any blood there may have been? That his wife was in the seat when it was removed? Where did you get your informatin about his answers? The news, or actual transcripts? I hope it wasn't the news. They'll out and out lie to sell a paper, and that HAS been shown.
Your last statements also confuse me. I understand having a desire for justice. I don't understand why you personally feel someone you don't know accused of commiting a crime aganist someone you also don't know is found guilty and punished. You weren't there, you weren't in the jury even.. how can you be so sure of anything? I find there are too many questions, and I'd rather error on the side of the accused than the state. Take a look at recent cases in Texas. We're up to, what, 18 people that are now free because we can finally prove they are innocent? Many those cases were based on just circumstatial evidence as well... some even had real physical evidence. And yet you can safely say "well, I KNOW he's guilty this time?"
EVEN IF Nina shows up alive and well, Hans has a lot of explaining to do.
Huh? What would he have to explain? Where she was? Why is that burden on him? How can you reasonablly hold him to that? If I just up and left my wife, you think she could even hope to explain anything?
Well I certainly don't care if you choose to throw away your money. I just was pointing out reasons for others to not take your advice.
As far as co-signing goes, again, I was aiming anything at you personally, just responding to your points. But co-signing is a bit different; they already assumed responsiblity for the debt, and why you end up not paying is mostly irrelevent.. If you co-sign for someone, you'd better be able to assume the debt at any time. If you can't, you shouldn't be co-signing.
At any rate, co-signing is more of an edge case. When I got my student loans, the government gave my parents a loan totally seperate from mine loan. If I died, my parents would only be responsible for their own loan, not the loan that was in my name only. I would have liked to gotten life insurance to help my parents pay off their loan, since it was for my benefit, but being in college it wasn't really an option for me. Now that I'm more established, that is one of the reasons I have life insurance.
Huh? Do you have anything to back up your line of crap? I use Trillian, and I have to say, Jabber is the only protocol I couldn't give two shits about. Maybe to you it's a deciding feature, but I doubt it is to most on Windows.
Your student debt is irrelevent. Unless you're planning on leaving a lot of money or your assets, it won't matter. They can't hold your parents responsible for your debts, so the only option would be to auction your stuff. Being that you're a young unmarried person, you probably don't really have anything your family would need. Obviously if you have kids it's different.. but if you don't and it's just you.. well, there's really no reason for you to have your own life insurance, unless you care about your parents getting your TV or something.
Funerals are expensive, as are plots of land. Cremation is also not cheap, AFAIK. So yes, they do have more to worry about, but at the same time they need to make final arrangements for their son, and I don't think anyone wants to worry about going bankrupt on bury their son either..
If the family can't afford it and does nothing, some states will just bury the body in some remote plot of land, likely without even a name on the marker.
Huh? I created a myspace profile to see a friend's profile, and it never asked for next of kin. If it does provide a space for that, it's certainly not required. Yahoo I'm fairly sure is the same as well.
You assume Lotus Notes was fitting their definition of "works."
The article seems fishy though, because you can backup Exchange and have been able to for a while, and I know I saw Data Retention as a feature, although maybe eight years ago it was not.. still, a backup should have been done, and that should have gotten more emails.
Without a body, it's hardly reasonable to conclude she is dead. You assume that the jury was reasonable, or that you are. People disappear all the time, and they are not dead. Women in abusive relationships "disappear" all the time. Many aren't dead, they go underground, moving across country. Why is this not a likely scenario? You really think it's more probably that people that disappear are dead? Where are you stats to back that up? What grounds are you basing that assumption on?
I know the legal defintion of circumstantial evidence because I've read it. It's also soundly based on logical fallicy. Consider this: in HS, your principal sees you sitting at a certain table during lunch. Later that afternoon, he comes back and finds the table vandalized. He gives you detention because he concludes that you vadalized the table, because you were the last person someone saw sitting at the table. Do you find that to be a logical or reasonable conclusion? Or is it just as likely that someone else vandalized the table between the time you were last seen there and the time the crime was discovered?
That's pretty much the case here. Finding blood does not mean someone has died. It means someone has bleed. Being unable to locate the person does not mean that person has died. It means no one knows where that person is. Put it all together, I don't see how any reasonable person can believe "beyond any reasonable doubt" that there is no other scenario that lead to the evidence at hand.
Check this link. Circumstacial evidence is not allowed in many states for liable in defective product cases. If we don't allow it there, why are we allowing it for criminal murder trials?
What is this "more democratic country" that has such wonderful prisons for people who commit murder?
Well, let's consider that there's no body. Just because one is convicted doesn't mean one is actually guilty. In this case, it seems to be nothing but circumstantial evidence. There's not one drop to link him to the disapearence of his wife, and we can't even be reasonably sure she's dead. I'm pretty boggled that we even allow only circumstantial cases to be brought, let alone convict anyone on the "evidence."
I've been using file systems all my life, so I can tell if one is slower than others, or loses data. I don't even need to know the theory to judge it.
Courts ask how they got the information all the time. Even if the court doesn't, the accused's defense will certainly want to know where the information came from, and the evidence would be thrown out then.
Thanks for sorta seeing my connection here. :-)
Bringing things more back on topic (although I feel I've been on topic), if we can't reach a conclusion about whether violent books lead to violent crimes, why are we creating laws restricting individual freedom?
Of course, I'd also argue that it's already been proven that there is no such link between violent art and violent people.. people have been violent long before we started forming "civilizations."
I guess "nothing to do with TFA" is a mindset. I see them as related because both are actions by a government trying to limit a person's individual freedom.
As far as changing of minds go, how do you propose we proceed then? Eliminate the bans or make them stricter? If we can't even agree if there's a problem, why are we trying to create a solution? The topic needs to come up and be debated because one group of people are trying to control another group of people. Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.
Well, if it takes a full minute more for the SSD vs. the HDD, you may lose any battery savings... since you're powering the SSD for more than one minute.
I don't see that it's a stupid debate at all. Our founders had a very clear reason for the second amendment, and you can find volumes of their writings on it. If you want to call it stupid, please point out flaws in their reasoning. Being dismissive doesn't help your case, and dispite the flamebait mod, I really am curious as to when and why Britain outlawed private gun ownership. I honestly don't know the history of Britain's gun control laws, and its annoying to think that an honest question was meant to be flamebait.
I also find it odd that you only find gun ownership unusual; the whole idea of our government was very unusual in the time it was first created. I don't know of any other country that espoused the idea that people aren't subjects of some arbitrary authority, but are sovreign in their own right. I'm still not sure any other country has that idea behind it.. although it's said to see the US leaving that line of thinking today.
Sorry, you do own the hardware. You also own yoru data on it. The OS is another matter. But by trying to imply your computer isn't yours at all is FUD.
Uh, can you point to a section of the article that indicates that intential security holes were built in? Last I checked, if you have physical access to any computer, you can get in.